Talk:Bipolar War
Please do not change the generic war name unless there is a wide consensus to do so from people on both sides of the war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:45, Duodi, 2 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Perhaps a preventive move-protect would be prudent? It's going to happen, one way or another. If a widely accepted name comes forth, it can be brought up here. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 16:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)' ::Sounds acceptable to me. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:65, Duodi, 2 Pluviôse CCXVIII :::As long as its not called Great War VII(if it escalates), I'm okay with whatever name it is called. Will we be accepting the FOK declaration as a true one even though it was made via Wiki and not CN forums? --Brenann (talk • ) 19:20, January 24, 2010 (UTC) :If it's in-game, it's a war, regardless of how or if a declaration is made. FOK is in a state of war with the NpO, and they have chosen to declare as such, though through a somewhat unconventional medium. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 19:56, January 24, 2010 (UTC)' :@ Brenann. atm, it's impossible to make a declaration on the CN forums when it's down, so declaring via Wiki, is the next best thing - whatever works really. :) :While declaring via the CN Wiki comes awfully close to using the Wiki as a forum - something generally frowned upon - if wars are declared in-game then it must be considered official. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:33, Quintidi, 5 Pluviôse CCXVIII \m/ Commanders Can someone please make a decision on who's the commander of \m/ for the article? I've seen that swapped way too many times, we need to pick one set and stick with it. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 01:18, January 25, 2010 (UTC)' :Either all three alliance leaders or Xander. I personally think Xander is the correct option, but I'm not going to argue against the triumvirs instead. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:92, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Should the participation in this war grow (the possibility is largely heightened with the inclusion of FOK), I can see the Commanders section becoming awfully cluttered should the Triumvirs remain. --Gopherbashi (talk • ) 05:00, January 25, 2010 (UTC) So, any one who declares on one side or another can become a commander? :Each alliance can have up to one designated military leader. However, not all alliance need one. For example, the TPF War has the CC with only 3 commanders: the leader of the alliance attacked, the leader of coalition, and the name of a rogue from IRON. Not every alliance needs a commander. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 17:35, January 25, 2010 (UTC)' ---- Given the rapid expansion of this war and the number of disparate alliances involved, I'm removing both commander lists for the time being. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 3:82, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII NpO and Co Commanders Should we really include Rebel Virginia? It seams his alliance isn't important enough to include him as a commander, and he will likely be removed within the day reagardless. --Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 19:12, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :I agree. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:02, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Provided that there aren't a large number of them, prominent rogues tend to get listed. It's fine for now. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 19:17, January 25, 2010 (UTC)' ::He still gets the alliance listing, there's no point to listing the commander of a two-man AA. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:04, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII Update Can we PLEASE get a stats update before this evening? :Can you PLEASE sign your talk page posts? Also, if you want, run one yourself. Otherwise, someone'll get to it when they get to it. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:21, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::I would run a stats update (I actually did at one point yesterday, but didn't get around to tallying Polaris' numbers at the time and it was deleted). And I'd be more than willing to figure out things if I knew how to properly format the update and tally things up without having to manually do it alliance to alliance. I'm sorta new at this. JT Jag (talk • ) 20:17, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah, that's about the only way to do it, unfortunately. That's why stats never get done once a lot of alliances enter the war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:48, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::::Someone needs to whip together a program (a Firefox app, maybe?) that would allow you to search for multiple alliances and automatically add together their total NS, nukes, nations, improvements ect. Probably wouldn't be too complicated, but it's far beyond my abilities. JT Jag (talk • ) 20:30, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well, if you don't mind stats that are a little early, UE keeps a list of all that stuff that can be viewed any time. He tends to run a few hours before update. It's what I used for pre-war stats. The addition still has to be done, but at the size of the war it's not so bad yet, and the stats will always be there so you can do it any time, not just at update. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 20:33, January 25, 2010 (UTC)' :::::: Here are the numbers as of 2:40 server time. I can't make head or tails of how to add them. NpO side 622 nations, 18,407,769 :::::: Nation strength, and 5,651 nukes. \m/ side : 609 nations, 21629532 Nation strength, and 6509 nukes.--Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 20:42, January 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Thanks, I'll get these in! Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:72, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::::I've been posting warstats every night in the Sanction Race thread. They're taken from the All Alliances Display, so they're not real-time, but they're no more than 12 hours out of date so it captures everything from the previous Update. If you want, I should be able to rig it up so it collects NS and nuke stats as well. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 03:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::I rebuilt my stats program so that it now displays nation count, NS, and nuke count, to be used for the wiki stats. I normally post updates 3-4 hours before update, and I'll just c/p them in here at the same time. I'll leave out tonight's because we already had some after the last round of DoWs (not counting Umbrella, who went in after the update). --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 05:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC) New method of entering stats New method of entering stats: Here's how to use it: Example of usage: Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:88, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Note that you do not need to use or tags, these are in the template. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:92, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::Errors fount and corrected. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 3:01, Septidi, 7 Pluviôse CCXVIII Flag Ordering This is ridiculous. We should have NpO and \m/ at the top of the belligerent lists. They were the original combatants anyway. -Lordliam :Tradition is bloc first, then individual combatants. Neither of those alliances are in blocs (Polar is in Blunity, but I'm fairly certain that's econ only, and certainly there has been no attempt to paint it as a Blunity action). Locke Talk • Alestor ' 16:47, January 26, 2010 (UTC)' ::No, Polar and \m/ should be first. They started this war and should be at the top. :::Look at any war with bloc participation. That's how it works. ::::*Great War IV, The Unjust War ::::*War of the Coalition ::::*Karma War ::::*TPF War :::It always goes blocs, then independants. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 21:50, January 26, 2010 (UTC)' I smell a complete overhaul coming soon. Come on, put a "original combatants" box at the top with all the other alliances at the bottom. -Lordliam :Convention will not be broken unless there's a good reason. Look at the abovementioned articles. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 3:01, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII R&R Involvement In their DoW R&R stated they were coming in under the LEO treaty, not SF, since FOK! is also in the war shouldn't both be listed under that? --Vladisvok Destino (talk • ) 18:34, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm, you're right. I'll take care of that now. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:77, Septidi, 7 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::We might want to switch it back to Superfriends now that Fark and (apparently) CSN are in. JT Jag (talk • ) 05:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :::This can be done once things calm down a bit. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:61, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII War Name In the recent poll, it is clear that the name chosen is the Second Unjust War. Should we move the name? --Ryan Greenberg (talk • ) 03:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :While it probably will end up that way, I say we wait. The poll is still open, and with thousands of people playing, 20 or so could come along and vote for one of the runners up and change the result. The poll's also only been open for less than a day, I say we at least wait for a few days before changing. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 1:54, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::It's not even close to being done. I even specifically said in the OP that there'd be at least one more round. Wait on it. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 03:50, January 27, 2010 (UTC)' The War of the Busted Forums, perhaps? :P --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 05:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :Dang it Gopher I already voted for the other name you suggest the \m/oralist war, and now you go off and support a new name? For shame :P--Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 06:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC) XTLS I saw a quick DoW pass on the warscreen tonight, but I believe they're a one-man alliance. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 06:16, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, alright, then. I'll add them back in without a link and a generic flag. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:62, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII War Classification At what point would this war be considered Global? Angry Nun of NSO 20:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :We'll wait and see how big it gets. I don't ant to rush into a global classification only for it to end like the TPF War did. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:55, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Once the big blocs, like C&G, SF, or Cit, fully activate, and we get a nice long list on both sides, we should be set to call this global. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 20:36, January 27, 2010 (UTC)' ::The other option is to wait until your poll is done and we have a definitive new name. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:64, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII I think we can go Global on this now, with TOP in and SF all in. Safe to say its global. Brennan Talk • Brennan ' 04:49, January 29, 2010 (UTC)' NpO + \m/ at the top? I'd like to suggest that the primary instigators of the war be placed at the top of the stats list, even if they aren't in a bloc. This has generally been the case in past wars with say NPO and OV being at the top in Karma, or GOONS and NpO at the top of the UJW page. It seems strange to me that all the primary players that started this war are halfway down the list. Lord Brendan (talk • ) 21:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :As noted above, both NPO and OV were in blocs in the Karma War, and as they were the first alliances to declare war, their blocs were the first to be listed. Blocs are always listed before individual alliances. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:12, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Well, were Frostbite still active or \m/ more connected, this would have happened. Usually wars are begun with someone in a bloc, it just so happens this time it didn't. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 21:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)' :Just out of curiosity, how is the order of the nations determined? Is it by when they entered, their score, nation strength, etc? Jerichoholic of Ragnarok (talk • ) 13:02, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Alliance flags are positioned by when they entered, with blocs first by when the first involved member alliance entered relative to the other blocs. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:23, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII :::Check Great War II. Fark is the top of that war and only had a treaty with LUE, but wasn't in the League. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • ) 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::There were no blocs in that war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:41, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::::Nevermind, I'm an idiot. Regardless, that page is the exception, not the norm, and will most likely get corrected sometime soon. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:43, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII Withdrawals and Surrenders First, "Withdrawals" needs to be fixed. Second, the one nation from ((O)) only received a forum ban; his nation is still around and therefore can partake in in-game actions, such as declarations of war, attacks, and surrenders if he so chooses. To say that he has withdrawn from the war would be a misnomer, as only his access to the forums has been restricted. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 00:09, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :I searched in-game for alliance affiliation ((O)), and found no result, otherwise I'd not have listed it there. Would you mind linking me to his nation if you've found it? Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:08, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::Yeah, it took me a little while to find it too. ((O)) is apparently a shortform for his alliance's real name, Sön. ("Short form" being somewhat misleading). It's mentioned in the second line of his DoW. Declaration of War In-game Stats --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 00:23, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks. I'll fix this up. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:18, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII NOIR Was there an official declaration bringing NOIR in the war? NOIR is an economic bloc, the only military agreement in the bloc is that nations cannot attack other NOIR nations, but NOIR does not really go to war as a bloc; in fact there is a possibility of having NOIR nations on both sides of this conflict. I haven't changed it, because I don't want to overstep my bounds, but I felt I should mention it. Sigurd Odinnson (talk • ) 05:40, January 29, 2010 (UTC) NOIR has an ODP clause. Krunk 06:18, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :Someone on the OWF said they wanted NOIR in, so I added it. And though it was not activated as such, NOIR does feature an ODP clause, as Krunk has mentioned. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 12:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)' Two theater war This war should be broken in to two theaters (like RL Pacific/European in WW2) since the initial \m/ Polaris conflict has ended and the CnG conflict has just begun that is apart of this war over all. :No, it's still consistent enough to keep it together. So far. Mind, I'm horrible on the FA scene, so I'm not going to be updating this article. *summons Lol pie and Gopherbashi*. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:65, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::I would say that this war is two wars, seeing as the CB for the TOP/IRON vs CnG war is mostly separate, as stated in their DoW (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441). As the war goes on, I would suggest creating two separate topics as the sides unfold. SirDelirium (talk • ) 07:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Perhaps these could be considered sub conflicts of a what we could call the January World War or a more appropriate name? -- 07:49, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::I agree with this. Call the whole thing "The Winter War", and split it into the NpO/\m/ front and the CnG/Paradoxia front. JT Jag (talk • ) 08:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::: CnG war should be seperate IMHO, as CnG was not involved in the NpO-\m/ WarDdog241 (talk • ) 08:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC)ddog ::::: NSO is trying to get white peace in their conflict with FOK et al, and if they do than the NpO-\m/ war is entirely unrelated to the Paradoxia-CnG war and we can wrap this particular page up JT Jag (talk • ) 08:27, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree. I think we need to create a separate page for the TOP-C&G War, as NpO, FOK, and \m/ have made peace and this war looks to be extensive in and of itself. The casus belli would be the NpO-\m/ War. Taishaku :::I think a new page should be created before we remove any more from this article. That doesn't appear to be happening. WCR (talk • ) i think it should be kept within the same war as there is a decent chance that some of the alliances on polar's side in this were former CC members who might continue the fight under the banner of TOP. :I'd disagree. The two wars have different motives, different commanders, different CBs and different targets. This one is against \m/, the other should be the one against CnG. If having some alliances in common would mean it's the same war, then we might as well fuse half of CN history into a one huge war with longer breaks than usual. :This war was the direct cause of TOP's war, but TOP declared because they want blood from C&G. There are two entirely different sets of fighters on each side, and the CB's are different. It's enough that I'd say they should be different articles. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 13:01, January 29, 2010 (UTC)' :::By the same logic, the War of the Coalition is two separate wars, as the large coalition who declared war on the New Polar Order then claimed to be uninvolved in the "NoCB" conflict. Since there is some connection between the fronts, I think we should follow past precedent here and consider them both the same war. Theamazingdeist (talk • ) 18:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Sakura (talk • ) 13:59, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I wasn't around at the time and I believe you were, so you'd know this better than I: did the WotC involve mass-pull outs from original "NoCB" War? With the way it is now, all the original combatants are trying to get peace, leaving the new declaring alliances to their own war. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 14:04, January 29, 2010 (UTC)' ::Not really. TOP and IRON declared on CnG because they fully expected to be on opposite sides in the Polar-\m/ conflict, and didn't want to give CnG first crack in what they saw as an inevitable showdown. Nevertheless, since there's a high likelihood of alliances being on both "sides" if this remains as one conflict, and because this has morphed into a different conflict entirely, with different motives, commanders, etc., this really should be treated as two different wars - even if one is linked to (and a direct cause of) the other. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 19:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :I'd see these two conflicts as being definitely connected into one larger, global conflict. The idea of having them as separate theaters seems like a nice way to put it, but it would be ridiculous to show them as completely separate wars, especially when TOP entered the war saying it was entering into "this conflict" and referring to it as "this particular theater" in "this larger war" http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441. Theamazingdeist (talk • ) 18:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC) If we create sub-conflict pages, we should at the very least keep all the main information on this article, and only put relevant information on the others. Whether or not the CBs are different, all the wars started because of the treaty ties which drew everyone to fighting on either NpO or \m/'s side. It is one war (for example, World War II) even if it had separate conflicts within it (the European and Pacific theatres). Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:35, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Perhaps then we should have the articles structured such that there is one Major war page and one for each of the two theaters. Currently we have the NpO v \m/ theater being the parent article of the TOP/Iron v CnG theater. Instead have a "January War" or some other agreed upon title with info on both wars and make that article the parent of both theaters.SirDelirium (talk • ) 18:07, January 30, 2010 (UTC) CB change I tweaked the CB in the NpO-\m/ war to Alleged violation of community and charter standards on tech raiding to reflect upon the content of Grub's DoW. - kulomascovia :Grub later stated that that was not the sole reason: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=78932&view=findpost&p=2121452 Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 8:76, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII BTA on both sides? I notice that both sides have BTA under them. Kingcjc 21:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC) The name of the war Should we REALLY call this the Second Unjust War? I mean, it doesn't even come close to being relevant enough to deserve that name, especially considering the way it turned out. JT Jag (talk • ) 05:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :I agree, but it seems Bob has spoken. --'Avatar' Talk 05:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not fussed on the war name, but that's what got chosen in the poll, and although a second round of it has been opened, NpO-\m/ War just became way too irrelevant to keep. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:29, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::I can't help but think that if a new poll was opened the Second Unjust War would NOT come out on top. Anyway, the way this TOP/CnG conflict is shaking out it looks more like an extension of the Karma war than anything else. JT Jag (talk • ) 06:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, the new discussion will have a poll attached soon enough, as I'm sure Locke can confirm, so we'll see. If it changes later, we can change it here, so long as the name chosen is neutral. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:55, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::Well, in and of itself, the name fits for the conflict. The way I see it, the C&G-TOP war was basically "hell, everyone's warring, we can get away with a DoW on some people we don't like." The DoW said as much. It has no real relation with the current conflict other than timing. Something happened that made TOP willing to risk an aggressive declaration. But still, I think the only war pairing carring over from NpO's war is NSO/Fark, and quite frankly that's because Ivan won't be satisfied without having a full war. So, basically, if you see them as two conflicts, each with their own names, the name Second Unjust War works here. If you group them together, I'd also say it's not quite appropriate. That said, people are split on 1/2 wars, but hopefully they'll come to a concensus soon. And yes, there will be another poll up soon. I am hoping people can make up their minds on 1/2 wars so they know what the name applies to. Locke Talk • Alestor ' 06:17, January 30, 2010 (UTC)' :::Just a clarification: timing and what not aside, this article is about the "supra-war" which encompasses two separate wars: the NpO-\m/ War (which has no article) and the TOP-C&G War. If you're poll is for only the first part of the war, you should specify, but I think keeping its result for the supra-war and keeping simple names (like the current ones) for the sub-wars. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:69, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII I'm personally a fan of Ivan's christening of this as the "Cluster%#$@", but that's why we have polls. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 19:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC) Calling this the "Second Unjust War" makes absolutely zero sense. It is not related to the Unjust War in cause, combatants, commanders, nor anything else. It really should be changed.Jonathan Brookbank (talk • ) 23:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :In cause, both this war and the Unjust War have something to do with tech raiding. In terms of combatants, they both involved (at some point) \m/ vs. Polar (there are a number of other similarities among combatants, such as where FOK fought). And for commanders, there are probably some veterans involved in that war involved with this one (i.e. Archon). Theamazingdeist (talk • ) 02:25, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Archon is literally the only commander from the original UjW involved in this war, and he was only on one side of it. None of the commanders from ~''' are around or actively involved in coordination or leading this war, and other than Archon, I'm not aware of any others from the former UjP side. Calling this UjW 2 is completely illogical. ::A lot of people are disagreeing with this title though, it probably should be called the "January War" since that has universal appeal right now. The poll used to name this is still going on in another topic two so there is no final verdict either. -- 05:56, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :::I've seen "Winter War", but this is the first mention I've ever seen of "January War". Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:51, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::::"Winter War" might be better then as its still is neutral, less controversial and appears to also be a common name for this war already in use. -- 06:13, January 31, 2010 (UTC) Who's on what side? There have been tons of DoWs recently. Many players find it very confusing, to know who's on who's side, who are their allies, their enemies. I think that it should be udpated here, I would myself..but I don't know who's on which side, with all of those DoWs.--'''Avatar Talk 05:29, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :For the most part, Dynasty1 and Lol pie have kept it as up-to-date as possible, and this article includes both first- and second- phase declarations and alliance lists. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:31, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII Nation Stats Screenshots At least for the TPF War, screenshots were posted of the major alliances' stats screens before entering the war. Has anybody been doing that for this war? Jerichoholic of Ragnarok 00:40, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :Most of the ones from the NpO-\m/ phase of the conflict are posted as links, not images. Go to the page and search for "Screenshot" to find them. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:30, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::I was actually looking for something more along the lines of this, rather than screenshots showing war declarations. Jerichoholic of Ragnarok 01:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Oh, sorry, my bad. If anyone's been making them, they've not ended up here. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 0:65, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII :They were somewhat more relevant when the forums were offline, as in-game was the best we had. "Proof of involvement" is usually provided by a link to the OWF announcement. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 03:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC) Comprehensiveness of the Article Not that this is a bad article or anything, but I cannot help but notice that the actual article portion of it is much shorter than that of past global wars. While it is still useful and gets the general idea across, I feel like it is an entry composed more of links than an actual, detailed, chronological account of the events. I would recommend that it be extended, and, if necessary, rearranged and/or rewritten by someone who has been closely following the events of the war to fit this format, with the links serving as source citations (á la, the article on the Third Great War). If this is too much trouble, though, then don't worry about it. Gatherum (talk • ) 16:49, February 1, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I know I'm going to be expanding upon the TOP-C&G part when I can get more information on it. If you have more information yourself (ie, are active on the forums), any help would be appreciated :) Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:15, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::I can do the next best thing, that being, making us an article based on the information in all of these links, and then making said links references and citation notes. Afterward, maybe we could make a timeline of events or something. It will take a long while, but I'll see what I can do, if that's okay with you. Gatherum (talk • ) 22:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Sure. I don't think redoing the introduction paragraph is necessary, but certainly, it'd be useful :) Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:46, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::::Okay then. I will do so whenever I feel like it. And that'll happen when I am bored. Which happens a lot, don't worry. :P Gatherum (talk • ) 05:41, February 2, 2010 (UTC) This article is a hot mess Hey brahs, article needs to be organized into sections other than "external links". Also, if we're treating them as two wars, treat them as two wars and cut them; if we're not treating them as two wars, then don't, and remove the distinctions. But pick one.--Schattenmann (talk • ) 16:34, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :One article would be best, as this is one (extended) conflict. If there are subarticles for the various phases or fronts in the war, that's fine, but it should be lumped together at its highest point as a single war. --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 17:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::If someone (looking at you, Gopherbashi, since this was your idea) wants to merge it all back into this main article, feel free to do so, just make sure everything's accounted for and links to the other article, which would become a redirect, are also removed. The talk page of the other article would have to be merged into to this one, too. Really, I'd do it at this point, but given my great apathy towards world events, I'm pretty sure I'd entirely screw something up. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:72, Septidi, 17 Pluviôse CCXVIII :I've gone ahead and broken the thing down into subsections without altering any content. It's so purdy. --Schattenmann (talk • ) 06:35, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Polar on two sides NpO Declaration on TOP I don't believe we've ever run into this before, but I believe the appropriate thing to do now would be to place Polaris as a combatant on both sides? --Gopherbashi Sanction Race Updater 06:37, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :Yup. May want to footnote a small explanation, too. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:79, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::In Great War: Tournament Edition, there were three sides. We could do that. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • ) 07:05, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::We could, yes. Really, for one alliance I think it seems excessive. But if more alliances declare on both sides, that'd make sense, for sure. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:97, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII If Polar was placed on both sides, would you have to place VE, Kronos, etc on both sides as well? Soviet Canuckistan (talk • ) :Not if they were on different sides in the two phases of the war (unless we merge it all back into one). If they were on different sides in one or both side, which I don't believe is the case, that'd be enough to go for a third side. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 3:23, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII